Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheManInTheShack t1_ivgbyd1 wrote

Reply to comment by AConcernedCoder in "A socialist society has no room for parties or trade unions. [...] The struggle is for the simultaneous abolition of both market and production relations, [...]for the abolition of the differences in the working class brought about by the capitalist division of labor." by Maxwellsdemon17

It being a basic component of life doesn’t change a friendly game of checkers.

1

AConcernedCoder t1_ivgh1z6 wrote

Checkers requires cooperation, under the rules of the game. To an extreme, it's war. In competition, cooperation is a requirement to keep it civilized.

1

TheManInTheShack t1_ivguqe8 wrote

While competition is a basic component of life, cooperation is not a basic component of competition. Some forms of competition require cooperation and some do not.

When two hunters are competing for the same animal, they don’t have to cooperate for one of them to win. When two trees in a dense forest are both trying to reach the canopy to get more sunlight, they do not cooperate. If they are side by side and there’s only room at the top of the canopy for one, there will be a winner and a loser without cooperation playing a role.

1

AConcernedCoder t1_ivhv0qv wrote

You know, as useful as it may be to think about extreme hypotheticals like survival strategies among shipwrecked sailors without any food, they aren't descriptive of ideal conditions in society or the economy. Extremes are what we generally want to avoid.

And they're certainly not descriptive of enjoyable past-times, like competitive sports where (hopefully) the competitors don't try to kill each other in the process.

That's my point: elevate competition to an extreme and once decently enjoyable (and beneficial) competitions become something else. ..

1

TheManInTheShack t1_ivim31a wrote

> elevate competition to an extreme and once decently enjoyable (and beneficial) competitions become something else. ..

You keep suggesting I’m elevating competition simply by using it to describe one aspect of life. I’m not. I’m using it as a word because words are how we describe things.

If I describe the sky as being blue, I’m not elevating the word blue. I’m using it to describe the sky. That’s what words are for.

1

AConcernedCoder t1_ivioyqj wrote

This is about society and economic systems. At no point did I say "you" although, given I used a term to describe competition which means pejoratively, something unreasonably treated as sacred enough to be unquestionable, your issue with my criticism doesn't seem like it's doing any favors.

You argued competition is part of life and the natural world. I'm not disagreeing, I'm adding that cooperation is a necessity and without it, there's nothing to benefit society, being a state of affairs more like Hobbes' war of all against all.

1

TheManInTheShack t1_ivjpx7k wrote

Yes we cooperate when that is more sensible than competing. I’m simply saying that describing life as being competitive doesn’t elevate the concept of competition.

1